Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
381 to 400 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
HC dismissed writ appeal challenging refund application under Section 142(3) for unutilized CENVAT credit. The court upheld the Single Judge's ruling, finding the refund claim unsustainable based on Supreme Court precedent and existing statutory provisions. The appellant's arguments regarding refund under Section 55 of CGST Act were rejected as futile. The court determined no interference was warranted with the original judgment, thereby conclusively dismissing the appeal and maintaining the lower court's decision against the refund claim.
HC dismissed writ appeal challenging refund application under Section 142(3) for unutilized CENVAT credit. The court upheld the Single Judge's ruling, finding the refund claim unsustainable based on Supreme Court precedent and existing statutory provisions. The appellant's arguments regarding refund under Section 55 of CGST Act were rejected as futile. The court determined no interference was warranted with the original judgment, thereby conclusively dismissing the appeal and maintaining the lower court's decision against the refund claim.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.